Why India Is Hesitant About Trump's Board of Peace

Nineteen world leaders stood on stage in Davos, but India wasn't among them.

On January 22, Donald Trump led the founding ceremony of the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. While the US president invited 60 countries to join this new international body, India responded with cautious diplomacy: "We are examining the proposal."

Behind India's hesitation lies a web of geopolitical calculations that reveal the complexities of navigating Trump's transactional diplomacy.

From Gaza to Kashmir?

The Board of Peace technically stems from a November 2025 UN Security Council resolution focused on Gaza's reconstruction. Yet the board's charter makes no mention of Gaza, instead speaking broadly about ensuring "peace in places where it has proven elusive" and securing "enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict."

Trump's own words amplify India's concerns: "I think we can spread it out to other things as we succeed in Gaza." For India, this raises the specter of international intervention in Kashmir – the decades-old dispute with Pakistan that New Delhi has consistently kept off-limits to foreign mediators.

India has *categorically rejected* all previous mediation attempts, including those by Trump during his first presidency. Relations soured further when India dismissed Trump's recent claims of credit for stopping military clashes between the nuclear-armed neighbors in May 2024.

The Pakistan Problem

Adding complexity to India's dilemma is the inclusion of arch-rival Pakistan in the Board of Peace. India has long opposed Pakistan's efforts to "internationalize" the Kashmir dispute by drawing in external mediators.

Yet staying out means fewer tools to counter Pakistan's potential efforts to embarrass India from within the board. This mirrors what happens in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, where 50-plus Islamic countries regularly pass anti-India resolutions on Kashmir, targeting alleged human rights violations and calling for plebiscites.

"It makes a difference if you are in the room" when India-related issues are discussed, an Indian government official told The Diplomat. The challenge is that Trump's relationship with Pakistan has warmed significantly since May 2024.

The Cost of Saying No

Outright rejection isn't viable either. India is negotiating a trade deal to reduce the 50% tariff the US imposed on it. There are also initiatives like Pax Silica – aimed at securing critical mineral supply chains and building advanced manufacturing capabilities for semiconductors and AI – where India's participation could be at stake.

With Trump in office until 2029, India must maintain a working relationship with a president known for being mercurial and quick to take offense. The transactional nature of Trump's diplomacy means every decision carries potential economic consequences.

A New World Order Test

The Board of Peace's structure adds another layer of concern. Trump serves as inaugural chairman with "largely unchecked authority." Countries contributing more than $1 billion in the first year get permanent membership and sustained voting power, while non-paying members face renewable three-year terms at the chairman's discretion.

Former Indian diplomats offer conflicting advice. Some suggest "conditional support" – participating in Gaza reconstruction while rejecting the board as a UN alternative. Others see opportunity in the lukewarm European response, suggesting India could negotiate better terms with the transactional Trump.

Ajay Bisaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan and Canada, advocates bilateral negotiations: "India could pitch in with medical teams and reconstruction help, in line with its reputation as a peace contributor."

The Bigger Game

India has long complained about the UN's outdated structure that keeps it out of Security Council decision-making. If Trump intends the Board of Peace to become the foundation of new global governance, India might seize the moment to negotiate a more prominent role in the biggest global shakeup since 1945.

The board doesn't require head-of-government participation – countries can nominate representatives. This flexibility could allow India to engage without full commitment while testing the waters of this new diplomatic architecture.